Protest alleging that agency turned best value tradeoff into lowest-priced, technically-acceptable (LPTA) competition is denied. The protester claimed that instead of considering the benefits of its proposed personnel, the agency set a lowest common denominator for experience, which effectively converted what was supposed to be a best value tradeoff into an LPTA competition. GAO, however, found that the solicitation did not require the agency to consider the benefits of proposed key personnel. Moreover, the source selection document demonstrated that the agency had considered the relative merits of each offeror’s technical approach and reasonably concluded that the protester’s higher technical rating did not justify its higher price.
The published a solicitation seeking licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants for a military base in Texas. Thirteen offerors submitted proposals. The Army awarded the contract to WiseStaff, LLC. WiseStaff had the lowest-priced proposal and the highest rating under the solicitation’s performance risk factor. An unsuccessful offeror, Posterity, Arora JV, protested.
Posterity asserted that the Army had improperly converted what was supposed to be a best value tradeoff into a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable competition. Posterity argued that the Army failed to assess a strength for the extensive experience of the company’s proposed key personnel. Instead of considering the benefits of personnel, Posterity maintained, the Army simply established a lowest common denominator approach to experience that effectively turned the best value procurement into an LPTA competition.
GAO was not persuaded. The solicitation identified multiple elements the agency would consider under the technical quality factor. None of these elements included an evaluation key personnel’s experience. Rather, the elements focused on approaches, capabilities, processes. The agency had not erred in failing to consider the experience Posterity’s personnel.
Still, Posterity contended, one element under one of the technical subfactors required the agency to evaluate whether an offeror provided adequate management techniques, tools, practices and interface with government personnel to ensure satisfactory performance. Posterity claimed that this element could easily include consideration of key staff experience.
GAO disagreed. The element Posterity identified focused on management techniques and tools, not the experience key personnel. What’s more, even if the element encompassed the experience of key personnel, it did not require the agency to evaluate experience.
Posterity further argued that contrary to the agency’s claims, its proposal clearly communicated how the experience of its key personnel would benefit the agency. But GAO found that while Posterity’s proposal broadly discussed the experience of its personnel, it did not demonstrate how the experience of the personnel would benefit the agency, nor did the proposal provide detail as to how Posterity would leverage this experience to perform the required work.
Posterity alleged that the source selection document demonstrated that the Army converted the procurement into an LPTA competition because it did not show how the agency meaningfully evaluated or compared offerors’ proposals. GAO, however, found that the source selection decision rationally contemplated the differences between offerors and reasonably decided that Posterity’s technical benefits were not worth a price premium.
Next, Posterity argued that the Army applied unstated criteria when it found that the past performance of one the proposed key persons was not relevant because it was work performed as an employee of the government, not as a contractor. The solicitation, Posterity, asserted did not state that past experience had to be as a contractor.
GAO rejected this argument, finding that the solicitation consistently and repeatedly informed offerors that their performance assessments must be for work on prior government or commercial contracts. Indeed, the solicitation assigned relevancy rating to past contract based on the number nurses provided on a contract or task order. Given this language, it was reasonable for the agency to find that experience provided oversight of nurses while working for the federal government was not relevant.
Lastly, Posterity contended that the Army’s evaluation of WiseStaff under the performance risk factor deviated from the solicitation because the agency independently identified past performance efforts in addition to those that WiseStaff had submitted with its proposal. GAO noted, however, that the solicitation stated that the agency would seek out recent and relevant performance information from the references offerors provided as well as from independently obtained sources. Thus, while the agency limited offerors to submitting three references, it also reserved the right to identify additional references beyond those three. The Army therefore had not erred in considering references WiseStaff had not submitted.
Posterity is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox II, and Ian P. Patterson of Schoonover and Moriarty, LLC. The intervenor, WiseStaff, is represented by Timothy F. Valley of Piliero Mazza. The agency is represented by Andrew J. Smith, Dana J. Chase, and Nicholas Luccetti of the Army. GAO attorneys John Sorrenti and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
